Local Union No. 153, IBEW

National Labor Relations Board - Board Decisions

Nov 5, 1975

221 N.L.R.B. 345 (N.L.R.B. 1975)

LOCAL UNION NO. 153, IBEW
Local Union No. 153 , International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO and Belleville
Electric & Heating, Inc. Cases 25-CC-349 and
25-CB-2155
November 5, 1975
DECISION AND ORDER
BY CHAIRMAN MURPHY AND MEMBERS
JENKINS AND PENELLO
On August 5, 1975, Administrative Law Judge
Nancy M. Sherman issued the attached Decision in
this proceeding. Thereafter, Respondent filed excep-
tions and a supporting brief, General Counsel filed a
brief in support of the Administrative Law Judge's
Decision , and Charging Party filed a brief in reply to
Respondent's exceptions to the Administrative Law
Judge's Decision.
Pursuant to, the provisions of Section 3(b) of -the
National Labor Relations Act, as amended, the
National Labor Relations Board has delegated its
authority in this proceeding to a three-member panel.
The Board has considered the record and the
attached Decision in light of the exceptions and
briefs and has decided to affirm the rulings, find-
ings,' and conclusions, as modified herein, of the
Administrative Law Judge, and to adopt her recom-
mended Order.
AMENDED CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
In paragraph 3 of the Conclusions of Law of the
Administrative Law Judge's Decision, the Adminis-
trative Law Judge inadvertently failed to indicate
that Respondent's conduct violated subsection (B) of
Section 8(b)(4). Accordingly, said paragraph is
hereby revised to read as follows:
"3. Respondent has violated Sections 8(b)(1)(A)
and 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)(B) of the Act by threatening
members with internal union discipline and other
reprisals if they worked for Belleville, and by fining
and expelling Larry Brown because he worked for
Belleville , with an object of forcing or requiring
Belleville, Frame, and Cassidy to cease doing
business with Independent."
ORDER
Pursuant to Section 10(c) of the National Labor
Relations, Act, as amended, the National Labor
Relations Board adopts as its Order the recommend-
ed Order of the Administrative Law Judge and
hereby orders' that the Respondent, Local Union No.
153, International Brotherhood of Electrical Work-
ers, AFL-CIO, its officers, agents, and representa-
tives, shall take the action set forth in the said
221 NLRB No. 62
345
recommended Order, except that the attached notice
is substituted for the Administrative Law Judge's
notice.
1 The Administrative Law Judge first found in the third paragraph of
Sec. I, 2, of her Decision that Respondent violated Sec. 8(b)(1)(A) by its
threats against Tate and Brown, and then in the next succeeding sentence
found that the Respondent violated Sec . 8(b)(1XA), except by "Item 3." In
our judgment , Rinks' statement that he "would advise " Tate to leave the
jobsite "because he could get into trouble" constitutes a threat within the
meaning of Sec 8(b)(1)(A).
APPENDIX
NOTICE To MEMBERS
POSTED BY ORDER OF THE
NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
An Agency of the United States Government
After a hearing in which all parties had the
opportunity to present their evidence; it has 'been
decided that we violated the law by, among other
thingss, expelling and fining Larry Brown because he
continued to work for Belleville Electric & Heating,
Inc., when we had no dispute with that Company.
We have been ordered to post this notice. We intend
to carry out the Order of the Board and abide by the
following:
WE WILL NOT engage in, or induce or encour-
age any individual employed by Belleville Electric
& Heating, Inc., or by any other person engaged
in commerce or in an industry affecting com-
merce, to engage in a strike or a refusal in the
course of his employment to perform any services,
where an object thereof is to force or require
Belleville Electric & Heating, Inc., Robert E.
Frame d/b/a Bob Frame Plumbing and Heating,
L. C. Cassidy & Son, Inc., or any other person, to
cease doing business with Independent Builders,
Inc.
WE WILL NOT threaten or impose internal union
discipline (including fines, and expulsion) on our
members, or threaten them, with other reprisals,
for refusing to engage in the kind of conduct
described above.
WE WILL rescind all disciplinary action taken
against Larry Brown, and excise any reference
thereto from our records.
WE WILL, ,on application, offer Larry Brown
immediate and full reinstatement to membership
and make him whole, with interest, for any losses
suffered because of the absence of union benefits
while he was expelled.
346 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
LOCAL UNION No. -153,
INTERNATIONAL - I
BROTHERHOOD OF
ELECTRICAL WORKERS,
AFL-CIO
DECISION
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
NANCY M. SHERMAN, Administrative Law Judge: This
case was heard at South Bend, Indiana, on April 22 and 23,
1975, pursuant to a charge in Case 25-CB-2155 filed on
December 23, 1974, a charge in Case 25-CC-349 filed on
January 7, 1975, and a consolidated complaint issued on
January 31, 1975. The issue presented is whether Respon-
dent Local Union No. 153, International Brotherhood of
Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO (the Union or the Electrical
Workers), violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and 8(b)(4)(i) and (ii)
of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, (the
Act) by, allegedly threatening and imposing internal union
discipline and threatening other reprisals for working for
Belleville Electric & Heating, Inc. (Belleville) for an object
of forcing or requiring Belleville and other persons to cease
doing' business with Independent Builders, Inc.
(Independent).
Upon the entire record,' including the demeanor of the
witnesses and the briefs filed by the Union, Belleville, and
counsel for the General Counsel, I hereby make the
following:
FINDINGS OF FACT
1. JURISDICTION
Belleville is an Indiana corporation with its, principal
office and place ofbusiness in South Bend, Indiana, where
it is engaged as a heating and electrical contractor in the
building and construction industry. During the year
preceding the issuance,of the complaint, a representative
period, Belleville performed services valued in excess of
$50,000 in States other than-Indiana.
Independent is an Indiana corporation with its principal
offices at Elkhart, Indiana, where at all material times it
has been engaged as a general contractor in the building
and construction industry. In May 1974 Independent
began 'construction of the Thomas Village Apartments
project (the'Thomas project) at Elkhart, Indiana. Between
May 1974, and January 1975 Independent purchased,
transferred, and delivered to the Thomas project goods and
materials valued at $10,000 which were transported to the
project directly from' States other than Indiana. Independ-
ent contracted with Belleville' to perform electrical and
heating installation work on the Thomas project; with
Robert E. Frame, an individual proprietor -d/b/a Bob
Frame Plumbing and Heating (Frame) to perform plumb-
1 Errors in the transcript have been noted and corrected.
2 The ABC's members include both construction contractors and
members (such as insurance companies, real estate firms, attorneys, and
accountants) who have other interests in the construction industry. Union
Business Agent Lloyd Robinson testified that he concluded that the Thomas
project was an ABC job after learning that ABC Organizer Dietrich had
ing installation on that project; and with L. C. Cassidy &
Son, Inc: (Cassidy) to perform insulation work on that
project. Between May 1974 and the issuance of the January
1975 complaint, Belleville purchased, transferred, and
delivered to the Thomas project goods and materials
valued at $47,241 which were transported to that project
either directly from States other than Indiana, or from
enterprises in Indiana which had received such goods and
materials directly from States other than Indiana. During
the same period, Frame (a contractor, in the building and
construction industry, with principal offices in South Bend,
Indiana) purchased, transferred, and delivered to the
Thomas project goods and materials valued at $33,813
which were-transported to that project directly from States
other, than Indiana. During the same period,, Cassidy (an
insulation contractor in- the, building and construction
industry, with principal offices in' Indianapolis, Indiana)
purchased, transferred, and delivered to the Thomas
project goods and materials valued 'at $3,534 which were
transported to the Thomas project directly from States
other than Indiana.
I fmd that, as the Union admits, Belleville,, Independent,
Frame, and Cassidy at all material times have each been an
employer engaged in commerce. within the meaning of the
Act, and that exercise of jurisdiction in the instant case will
effectuate the policies of the Act.
The Electrical Workers and Local No. 565, United
Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL-
CIO (the Carpenters) are each labor organizations within
the meaning of the Act.
H. THE ALLEGED UNFAIR LABOR PRACTICES
A. The Carpenters Picket Line at the Thomas
Project
Independent is the only nonunion contractor on the
Thomas project, which has about 16- subcontractors.
Independent is also a member of the Associated Builders &
Contractors(the ABC), most of-whose employer members
are nonunion.2 About August 19, 1974,3 Independent's
owner,' Raymond Miller, met with the Carpenters local
business agent and a representative of the-, Carpenters
international union. These Carpenters representatives
asked Miller if he was a union contractor. He-replied that
he was not, that he did not believe in it, that his men did
not want to be union,, and that "we were happy with what
we had." The Carpenters representatives asked Miller if he
would be interested in joining the union; he replied that `he
was not. -
About a week later, on August 26, the Carpenters set up
a picket sign at the west' gate --of the Thomas project,
stating, "Notice to the public. Independent Builders is not
meeting prevailing -wage or scale of the area. This is to the
public and not to the employers or employees on the job."
A day or' so later, Gordon Fedder, who was Belleville's
been there . Robinson did not recall the date of this discovery, but the
evidence shows that Robinson found this' out between about September 2
and 17, 1974. Belleville is also an ABC member, but Robinson 'testified that
he did not learn this until about March 1975, after the occurrence of most of
the events material herein.
3 All dates hereafter are 1974 unless otherwise stated.
LOCAL UNION NO. 153, IBEW 347
supervisor on the Thomas project and is a member of the
Electrical Workers, called the Electrical Workers assistant-
business representative, Ray Rink , and asked him about
crossing the Thomas picket line . Rink said that "we can't
cross the line." Fedder said that he understood Rink could
not tell "us" one way or the other if "we" could or could
not cross that line . Rink said, "that is right, he couldn't say
yes, he couldn't say no, but if anybody called in to the
union office, that he could tell them no, they could not
cross the line." Thereafter, Independent posted a notice at
the west gate stating that it was for the sole use of
Independent and its suppliers and visitors ; and posted
another notice at the east gate stating that it was for the
sole use of the subcontractors, and listing the subcontrac-
tors including Belleville . At or about the same time, Miller
told all the subcontractors to use the east gate . Thereafter,
the subcontractors used the east gate, and Independent's
employees and suppliers used the west gate . However, the
Carpenters picketed both gates off and on . The picketing
continued until January 1975.
Larry Brown, an Electrical Workers member employed
by Belleville, started -to work on the Thomas project in
early August 1974. On August 21, Electrical Workers
business agent, Lloyd Robinson , and its assistant business
agent, Ray Rink, visited the Thomas project . Robinson
told Brown and Belleville employee Steve Weideman, also
a member of the Electrical Workers, that the Carpenters
would start picketing the Thomas project on August 26.
Robinson did not tell the employees not to cross the picket
line nor tell them that they would be disciplined for
working while the pickets were up . Brown worked on the
Thomas project for 2 hours on August 26, but thereafter
and until September 3 Belleville assigned him to work on
jobs other than the -Thomas project . Nor did any other
Belleville employees work on the Thomas project during
this period.
B. Oral Efforts by the Union To Induce Belleville
Employee Brown To Stop Working on the Thomas
Project
Robinson testified that , after the August 21 conversation,
it was his understanding that Brown would not return to
the Thomas project . On September 4, at 8 a .m., Brown
began to work on that project. At or about 10 a.m.,
Assistant Business Manager Rink appeared and asked
Brown, who was the only Belleville employee on the job,
what he was doing there . Brown replied that he was
working. Rink said, "Didn't you see the pickets out there?"
Brown replied that he had not used that gate , he had used
the east gate . Rink said that the pickets were "like a
perimeter around the job." At this point, Independent
owner, Miller, approached, and Rink immediately left the
project.
Later that day, about a block and a half or two blocks
from the project, Rink stopped Brown 's truck ashe was
returning from lunch at home and told him that he would
be getting a letter from Robinson, from the Electrical
Workers, that "they wanted to talk to" Brown , that "there
was a complaint against" him. Rink further stated that
Spitzer Electric, whose employees were also represented by
the Electrical Workers, was doing another apartment
project in the area for another general contractor, that the
same Carpenters pickets were there , and that Spitzer had
obtained permission from the Electrical Workers to cross
that picket line. Brown replied that he did not think it was
right that Spitzer should be able to work and not Belleville.
Rink replied that Belleville was a bigger outfit which could
get rid of the material easier . Brown interpreted Rink's
remarks as telling Brown to leave the job. Rink did not tell
Brown not to cross the picket line or that he would be fined
or disciplined for working while the picket line was up.
Brown then went back to the Thomas project, where he
worked the rest of the week , through September 6.
C. Meetings Between . Brown and the Union's
Executive Board
On September 9, Brown received a registered letter from
the Electrical Workers , over Robinson's signature, direct-
ing him to appear at the next union executive board
meeting on September 12. The letter stated that the board
"has received a complaint concerning you that indicates
that you may have a problem and we may be of assistance
to you . The complaint apparently does not involve such
infractions of our rules to the extent which justifies charges
being placed against you ; however, it is important that you
appear at the time and place mentioned above so that this
matter may not become more serious."
The executive board meeting was attended by Brown,
board chairman Wiseman, board recording secretary
Rouch, board members Duxbury and Patrick Osterteg, and
assistant business agent Rink . Wiseman asked Brown
why he had done what he did. Brown replied that he was
doing it for himself, for Independent , for Belleville, and for
the Electrical Workers . Wiseman said , "How do you mean,
[the Electrical Workers]?" Brown replied that, if he left the
job, Independent would have it finished by a nonunion
contractor . Wiseman said that "that would be the chances
we would have to take and maybe if [Brown] would leave,
the . . . other trades would follow ." Wiseman said if
Brown continued to go back to the Thomas job, "there
would be further legal action."
Belleville is a member of the Northern Indiana Chapter
of the National Electrical Contractors Association, whose
member contractors are parties to a collective-bargaining
agreement with the Union. On a date not specified in the
record, inferentially between September 4 and 13 , Belleville
asked the chapter manager , Kenneth C. Clawson, to find
out why the plumbers could work on the Thomas project
and the electricians could not. On September 13, Clawson
asked ' Rink why the electricians could not work on the
Thomas project. Rink stated that "the Carpenters had a
picket on the job and they had agreed with the Carpenters
that the electricians wouldn't cross the picket line."
Also on September 13, Brown reported the events at the
September 12 executive board meeting in a face -to-face
conversation with the Belleville supervisor on the Thomas
project, Gordon E. Fedder, and by telephone to Belleville
vice president, Charles L. Shultz . Shultz, then telephoned
Rink, who denied that there had been any statement at the
348 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
meeting to the effect that "more action" would be taken
against Brown at the Thomas project,4 and said,- "you
know we can't take any action against him." Shultz relayed
this denial to Fedder, who telephoned Rink and asked
whether somebody had threatened Brown with "further
legal action." Rink replied that "somebody" had, but he
did not know who. Fedder then asked Brown whether he
was going back to the job, inferentially ,relaying to Brown
part or all of Rink's remarks. Brown replied that he was.5
D. Union-Directions to Brown To Repprt for
Reassignment
On September 13 and 16, the next 2 working days,
Brown worked on the Thomas project without incident.
Brown also reported to work on the Thomas project on the
morning of September 17. About noon that day, Rink
stopped Brown's truck as he was driving home for lunch,
and said that. Robinson had ordered him to report to the
union hall at 8 o'clock the next morning for reassignment.
Brown thereupon went home, reported to Fedder by
telephone what Rink had said, and said that Brown was
going to pick up his tools and was not going back until
things were straightened out. At or about 1 p.m. that day,
Brown returned to the Thomas project, picked up his tools,
and left.
At 8 a.m. on the following day, ,September 18, Brown
reported to Robinson at the union hall. Robinson asked
whether he wanted to sign the "out-of-work" slip (a slip,
maintained at the union hall, which an unemployed
member signs for reassignment). Robinson said that he
would reassign Brown to the Bridgeman nuclear plant (not
a Belleville job), and that it was working 7 days a week, 12
hours a day, with at least time and a half for overtimes
Brown replied that he had 'not 'yet had his vacation and
wanted to take time, off, and 'asked, "Could I sign [the
reassignment slip] later?" Robinson 'acceded. Brown
thereupon took a vacation through September 24.
E. Union Pressure Against Union Member Tate
From the time the picketing began until Brown went on
vacation on September 18, he was the only Belleville
employee on the Thomas project. On September 20, union
member -David Tate began to work for Belleville on the
Thomas project, as Brown's replacement. The second day
Tate was on the project, Rink approached him and asked
what he was doing there-Tate, replied that he had been sent
to take over the wiring. Rink asked whether he knew there
was a picket on thejob. Tate replied that he knew, but that
,,it was an information picket and 'according to [his]
understanding of the rules, that [he ] could work the job if
[he] wanted to." Rink asked whether he knew that Brown
had got into trouble because he worked on the project, and
4 Brown's testimony that such a remark was made stands undenied in the
record . The corrected transcript shows that Rink was still the Union's
assistant business agent at the time of the hearing (supra; fn. 1) However, he
did not testify , nor was his absence explained.
6 My findings in this paragraph are based on a composite of the
testimony of Brown, Shultz, and Fedder Such testimony is mutually
corroborative, except that Shultz testified that after talking to Rink he
telephoned Brown, whereas Brown and Fedder testified that Shultz talked
to'Fedder. I regard . Brown's and Fedder's recollectionas more reliable than
Shultz'.
Tate replied that he did not know this, that all he knew was
that Brown wasn't working the project any more. Rink said
that, even though the picket was an information picket, it
was a Carpenters picket, the Electrical Workers Union was
honoring this picket, and he would advise Tate to leave the
job. Tate said that he had about a half day's work left to
do, and that he would finish that up as quickly as possible
and leave. Rink said that he would advise Tate to leave,
because he could get into trouble. Tate said that he would
leave. Rink said that if Tate left the job, Rink would forget
having seen him and he should forget having seen Rink.
Tate thereupon cleaned up the job and, 15 minutes later,
left the project. He then relayed Rink's remarks to
Belleville Supervisor Fedder and Belleville Vice President
Shultz.
On the following day, after discussing the matter with
Shultz and Fedder, Tate returned to work at the Thomas
project. Tate told Fedder that if Tate was again confronted
by someone from the Electrical Workers he would
probably leave again. However, Tate heard nothing further
from the Electrical Workers, and he continued to work at
the project until mid-November. During this entire period,
a picket was at the west gate and Tate used the east gate.
Tate was never disciplined by the Union.
F. The Executive Board's Disciplining of Union
Member Brown
During Brown's vacation, he talked the reassignment
matter over with Belleville management and decided not to
report to the union hall for reassignment. Thereafter,
Belleville management told Brown that they would hire
and pay a lawyer for him "to fight this. On September 24,
the last day of Brown's vacation, he and Shultz prepared a
letter to 'Business Agent Robinson over Brown's signature.
The letter stated , inter alia:
... I like working with the people at Belleville and
am confused by your decision that would cause this
relationship to end.
My conduct has been no different from other men
working in other trades on the [Thomas] job.
Since I am not aware of any laws or rules of the local
union that have been violated and since even your own
letter stated there is no justification for charges against
me, I respectfully request the privilege of a review of
this action with the Executive Board of the Local
Union.
Until such time a review with the board is possible I
feel compelled to remain at Belleville and continue to
work for them.
Brown did not sign an out-of-work slip. On September
25, he resumed work for Belleville, primarily on projects
6 This job was within the Union's territorial jurisdiction, but would have
required Brown to drive about 50 miles each way, every day, without
receiving traveltime or a mileage allowance. The Thomas project was 4
blocks from Brown's home, and while working on that project he went
home for lunch. The Bridgeman project terminated 3 or 4 weeks later,
whereas the Thomas project had not yet been completed at the time of the
April 1975 hearing. However, when Robinson mentioned the Bridgeman
project neither he nor Brown knew of its approaching termination.
LOCAL UNION NO. 153, IBEW 349
other than the Thomas project. On October 12, Brown
received a letter directing him to appear before the union
executive board on October 17. Present at this meeting
were the same individuals who had attended the September
12 meeting . Brown asked what he had done wrong;
Wiseman replied that Brown had crossed the picket line.
Brown asked whether he could have this in writing; after a
slight silence, Rink said that he could. Brown also asked
why the Union wanted to remove him from Belleville.
Wiseman replied, "for the best interest of the Union."
Wiseman told Brown that, in order to get in the Union's
good graces again, Brown was to report to the union hall
the next morning for reassignment.
Brown nonetheless continued working for Belleville: By
letter dated October 25, and signed by union recording
secretary, Kenneth Johnson, Brown was directed to appear
before the Union's trial board on November 15 to answer
"charges" filed against him by Robinson. The letter stated
that the "charges comprise" article 22, section 4, of the
International constitution and article 6, section 2, of the
Union's bylaws. Article 22, section 4, consists of the
prescribed membership obligation assumed by Brown
when he joined the Union - namely, an undertaking "to
conform to and abide by the constitution and laws of the
IBEW and its local unions [, to] further the purposes for
which the IBEW is instituted [, and to] bear true allegiance
to it and . . . not [to] sacrifice its interest in any manner."
Article VI, section 2, of the Union's bylaws empowers the
business manager to "remove any member from any shop
or job (when not in violation of any agreement) for not
complying with our laws and rules or when he decides the
best interests of the local union require such removal."
The trial board hearing was attended by six trial board
members (including Rouch, Duxbury, Osterteg, and Trial
Board Chairman Wiseman, all of whom had attended the
September 12 executive board meeting),7 Rink, Robinson
(who left early), Brown, and Fedder, who was also a union
member and whom Brown had asked'to represent him.
Robinson read aloud the following October 24, 1974, letter
from Robinson to Union recording secretary, Johnson, a
copy of which had been sent to' Brown along with the
October 11 letter notifying him of the October 17 trial
date:
I, Lloyd E. Robinson, Sr., . . . a member of Local
Union # 153, hereby prefer charges against Brother
Larry K. Brown, ... a member of IBEW Local Union
# 153,. . . for violation of the following:
International Constitution: Article 22, Section 4
Local Union # 153's By-laws: Article 6, Section 2
On or about September 17, 1974, 1 instructed
Assistant Business Manager, Ray Rink to talk to
Brother Brown regarding the A.B.C. job [see supra fn.
2]. I then proceeded to inform Brother Brown I was
pulling him in the best interest of the IBEW and to
come into the Union Office for reassignment. He came
into the office and said he wanted to take some time off
and would be back.
On September 24th he wrote me a letter informing
me he intended to stay with his employer and requested
a meeting with the Executive Board. His request was
granted on October 17, 1974.
Brother Brown appeared before the Executive Board
and denied any wrong doing or understanding of the
reason for reassignment. He was advised to go to the
Union Office the next morning for reassignment but
todate has never showed up.
He has been totally uncooperative and has refused to
comply with my instructions that were issued in the
best interest of the Local Union.
I feel this constitutes enough evidence to support my
charges.
The allegedly violated provisions of the constitution and
bylaws were read to Brown . Robinson then asked him
whether he understood the charges , and Brown replied,
"No, not really." Fedder asked Robinson to explain what
was meant by "the best interest of the Union"; Robinson
replied that this was already in the charges or letter.
Robinson said that he did not want the ABC contractors
(supra, fn. 2) to get started, that they were not paying the
prevailing wage scale. The corrected transcript of Brown's
credited testimony shows that Fedder asked whether the
Union had any dispute with any of the contractors on the
Thomas job, and Robinson replied no. Fedder said that he
did not think the trial was "fair" because all the other
crafts had crossed the picket line and, so far as he knew,
Brown was the only one against whom charges had been
pressed. Fedder asked why Spitzer Electric was allowed to
cross the same kind of picket line at another project in
Elkhart; Wiseman said that this had nothing to do with the
charges against Brown. Brown remarked that, if the pickets
had not been at the Thomas job, "this would never have
happened to me." Nobody replied. Robinson said that
Rink had told him that Rink had seen Brown's truck on the
Thomas project after Brown had been told to report for
reassignment ; Brown and Fedder both denied this. Rink
stated that he had instructed Brown to report to the hall for
work assignment on September 17. Wiseman asked Brown
why he wanted to continue working at Belleville Electric;
Brown replied that it was a "great place to work ." Brown
called as a witness a Plumbers union member employed by
the plumbing subcontractor on the Thomas project, but
there is no evidence what he said. Osterteg said that he had
refused to cross a Plumbers picket line on an unnamed
project in Elkhart.
Wiseman asked Brown whether he thought he had had a
fair trial, and he said he guessed so. Brown was found
"guilty" of violating article 22, section 4, of the Interna-
tional, constitution, and fined $500. He wasalso found
"guilty" of violating, article 6, section 2, of the union
bylaws "with the following terms: Brother Brown be
expelled from the IBEW. This action to be suspended if
Brother Brown complies with the request of the Business
Manager's Office for reassignment, within ten (10) working
days of the registered post-marked date of the Local Union
notification to Brother Brown on the results of this Trial
7 Under the Union's constitution , the executive board constitutes the
teal board
350 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
Board." The trial board advised Brown of his right to
appeal to the International.s
After the meeting , Fedder asked Rink whether the Union
had any kind of agreement with the Carpenters local. Rink
replied that they had an agreement that the Union would
not cross the picket line, and that the "Carpenters business
agent called and really raised a fuss because Belleville
Electric had gone in the Thomas Village Project."
On or about November 18, Brown received a certified
letter from Rauch setting forth the trial board' s decision,
and calling his attention to certain provisions in the
International constitution should he wish to appeal.9
G. Brown's Purported Appeal to the International
A document entitled "Appeal for Disciplinary Action by
Local 153 IBEW vs. Member Larry K. Brown," and signed
by "S. Douglas Trolson," 10 was sent on or about
December 23, 1974, to International sixth district vice
president, T. E. Malone. This document alleged, inter alia,
that the Union's actions "constitute a violation of member
Brown's rights as guaranteed by Section 7 of the Taft-
Hartley Act, and a violation of Section 8(b)(4)." By letter
dated December 27, 1974, to "Mr. S. Douglas Trolson, Jr.,
Attorney at Law," with courtesy copies to Brown et al.,
Malone stated:
... the [International} Constitution ... under
Article XXVII, Sections 12 through 18, very clearly sets
forth the proper procedure for a member to use who
claims an injustice has been done him by any Local
Union or Trial Board. There is no provision for other
persons making appeals on behalf of an IBEW
member."
Trolson was out of town when the foregoing letter
arrived at his office. Upon his return on January 4, 1975,
he tried to telephone' Malone, who was out of his office,
and whom Trolson was not able to reach until January 13.
Trolson told' Malone why this letter had not reached him
until January 4, pointed out that the 45-day period for
appeal had by that time expired,12 and asked whether he
would accept and act upon a resubmitted appeal signed by
Brown personally. Malone replied that whether to review it
would ' be within his discretion, and that Brown could
submit it and take his chances.
By letter to Malone dated January 20, 1975, Trolson
stated, inter alia, that Malone had "made it quite clear in
our phone conversation that as far as you are concerned
Mr. Brown has filed no Appeal, and that if he were to file
8 See infra, fn. 9.
9 The provisions specified were art. 27, secs. 12 and 13. Sec. 12 provides,
inter al:a, "Any member who claims an injustice has been done him by any
trial board . . may appeal to the International Vice President any
time within 45 days of the action complained of" Sec. 13 provides, "No
appeal for revocation of an assessment shall be recognized unless the
member has first paid the assessment, which he can do under protest. When
the assessment exceeds $25, payments of not less than $20 in monthly
installments must be made. The first monthly installment must be made
within 15 days from the date of the decision rendered and monthly
installments continued thereafter or the appeal will not be considered."
10 Tlus document was in fact signed by S Douglas Trolson, Jr , who also
filed the instant charges (December 26, 1974, and January 9, 1975) on
behalf of Belleville.
an Appeal at this time it would be untimely and it would
therefore be within your absolute discretion to decide
whether or not to consider an Appeal." Trolson further
stated that he could not advise his client, Brown,
personally to file his own appeal, lest such action be viewed
as a waiver of his right to challenge Malone's interpretation
of the International constitution and Brown's rights
thereunder. Trolson asked Malone to consider the appeal
on its merits. By letter to Trolson dated January 23, 1975,
Malone stated, inter alia, "I made no statement to you in
our telephone conversation on January 13, 1975, that if
Larry K. Brown were to file an appeal at that time that it
would be untimely. My statement . . . would be that if he
were to file an appeal, such would be given consideration
in accordance with the provisions of the IBEW Constitu-
tion relative to appeals by members."
At the time the foregoing events occurred, Brown had
been a union member for 18 years. He did not exercise his
option, in connection with the expulsion penalty, to report
to Robinson for reassignment within 10 days rather than
lose his membership. Nor has Brown ever paid any portion
of the $500 fine levied against him. Trolson had advised
him not to pay it, but he testified that, even absent such
advice, he would not have paid it. Although the Union
accepted Brown's dues through 1974, Robinson returned
Brown's dues for January 1975 (proffered, as was the
custom, in the following month - February 1975), on the
ground that the dues could not be accepted until he had
paid his $500 fine. Brown's January and February dues,
both proffered in March 1975, were returned on the
ground that they could not be accepted until Brown paid
$20 a month toward his fine.
H. Progress of the Thomas Project
Between September 25, 1974 (the day Brown returned
from vacation), and April 11, 1975 (2 weeks before the
hearing), Brown worked on and off on the Thomas project.
During the same period, union member Weideman worked
regularly on that project. Union member Tate worked
regularly on that project between September 23 and
October 25, 1974, and also worked on November 12. Also,
union member Charles Robinson worked from November
12 through 15. Tate was never disciplined by the Union for
work on the project. There is no evidence that the Union
asked Weideman or Robinson to leave the project or
Belleville's employ, or ever disciplined them or threatened
them with discipline for continuing to work for Belleville.
Nor is there any evidence that any of these three members
was asked to take a reassignment. There never was a work
11 Secs. 12-13 are summarized supra, fn 9 Sees 14-18 are not in the
record. After the receipt of this letter from Malone as Resp. Exh. 1, the
following colloquy occurred:
JUDGE SIIERMAN : I note that this says Article 12 through 18, and I don't
think 14 through 18 are in the record.
[Union Counsel I SnAEtu: No, I can read them in.
JUDGE SHERMAN : Do you wish to put them in, 14 through 18?
MR SIMERI : Not particularly, but I will
JunGE SriE12MAN : Well, if you don't rely on them, I don't especially
want them
MR. SIMERI - I don't, I am not relying on them.
12 See supra, fn 9. This time expired about January 2, about 10 days after
Trolson's December 23 "appeal. "
LOCAL UNION NO. 153, IBEW
stoppage on the Thomas project. As previously noted, the
picketing ceased in January 1975.
The collective-bargaining agreements which bind Belle-
ville and the Union contain clauses limiting strikes,13
include union-shop provisions, require Belleville to hire all
employees through the Union,14 and require the Union to
maintain a register with specified standards of priority and
to refer applicants from that register, with Belleville having
the right to reject any applicant. In addition, the
"residential" agreement applicable to the Thomas project
provides, "The Union reserves the right to discipline its
members for violation of its laws and agreements."
Robinson testified that under union rules he had the
theoretical authority to remove every Belleville employee
working on the Thomas project if he thought such action
was in "the best interest of the Union," but that, if he had
exercised his asserted right under the union bylaws to
reassign all of Belleville's employee members, he would
have had to resupply Belleville with help; that, if Brown
had accepted reassignment , Robinson would have given
Belleville another man, on Belleville's request, and that
Robinson had qualified residential people available.
Robinson further testified that he had never asked Brown
or any other Belleville employee not to work on any other
job that Belleville had been working on, because "that
would be in direct violation of our labor agreement," but
that he would not violate the agreement by a "request" that
an employee leave a job "in the best interest of the Union."
Neither Robinson, nor Rink, nor any other union official
ever told Brown not to cross the picket line, or told
Belleville Vice President Shultz that Belleville or its men
could not work on the Thomas project.
As of the April 22-23, 1975, hearing, Belleville had
almost completed the Thomas project. Belleville Vice
President Shultz credibly testified that in his organization
he regarded Brown as a "keyman" and "leadman" on
residential-wiring jobs such as the Thomas project, but
there is no evidence that the Union was specifically aware
of Shultz' belief. Shultz credibly testified to a belief that
Weideman was a less desirable employee than Brown on
such work, and credibly testified that Brown's absence
from the project held it up "to a certain degree."
13 The "residential" contract, applicable to the Thomas project, provides,
"There shall be no stoppage of work by strike because of any
proposed changes in this agreement or disputes over matters relative to this
agreement." The "commercial" contract provides, "There shall be no
stoppage of work. by strike because of any proposed amendment to
this agreement or dispute over any matter relating to this agreement "
14 Belleville does have the right to hire directly if the Union cannot
supply employees within 48 hours
1s Thus, on cross-examination Robinson testified as follows-
Q [By the General Counsel] how did [the Union's dispute with
A B C ] fit into your determination to request what you did of Brown,
that is request his removal at the time you did9
A I am saying that he acted in the interest of the Associated Builders
and Contractors [supra, in 21 and didn't fulfill his obligation and oath
to the membership of the I B E W when he continued to work there
1. Analysis and Conclusions
351
1. The Union's reasons for pressuring Brown and
Tate
The General Counsel and Belleville contend that the
Respondent Electrical Workers sought to induce Brown
and Tate to stop work on the Thomas project in order to
help the Carpenters Union in its dispute with Independent,
the nonunion general contractor on the project. I agree.
Rink's statements to NECA chapter manager, Clawson,
on September 13 and to Fedder on November 25 establish
that the Respondent Electrical Workers had agreed with
the Carpenters that electricians would not cross the picket
line at the Thomas project. Further, the record shows that
the Union's pressures against its members Tate and Brown
were motivated by these members' actions in working on
the Thomas project while it was being picketed. Immedi-
ately after the picket line was set up, Rink told Fedder that
"if anybody called in the union office, that he could tell
them no, they could not cross the line." On September 21,
Rink pointed out to Tate that there was a picket on the
Thomas job, told Tate that Brown had got into trouble
because he worked on the project, further said that the
Union was honoring the Carpenters picket, and then
advised Tate to leave the job because he too could get into
trouble. Similarly, after Brown continued to work on the
Thomas project notwithstanding Rink's September 4
assertion (after a "reserved gate" had been set up) that the
pickets were "like a perimeter around the job," Brown was
called before the Union's executive board on September
12, when Board Chairman Wiseman observed that "maybe
if [Brown] would leave [the Thomas project], the . . . other
trades would follow," and threatened "further legal action"
if Brown continued to work on the project. At another
executive board meeting a few weeks later, Wiseman stated
that Brown had done wrong to cross the picket line, that
the Union wanted to remove him from Zelleville "for the
best interest of the Union," and that Brown should report
to the union hall the next morning for reassignment
Wiseman's language on this occasion makes it perfectly
clear that in thereafter contending that Brown was
eventually fined and expelled for failing and refusing to
report for reassignment by Robinson when he decided that
Brown's removal from Belleville was in the Union's "best
interest," the Union is in effect conceding that Brown was
fined and expelled for continuing to work for Belleville
while the Thomas project was being picketed.15
A How did he do this? How did the A B C fit into Brown's work for
Belleville on the Thomas Project?
A. It was, as far as I know, it was an Associated Builders and
Contractors' project, to the best of my information
Q. You do not feel that asking or removing Mr Brown from the
Thomas Village job was a violation of your labor agreement'
A No, I did not I didn't say he had to, I requested that he do so
Q But when he didn't comply with your request, you disciplined -
A I disciplined because he was not living up to our by-laws, that is
correct, I didn't discipline him, the executive board did, and the trial
board
352 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
It is true that other Electrical Workers members worked
for Belleville on the Thomas job without being disciplined.
However, Robinson's testimony shows that he regarded the
Union's contract with Belleville as limiting his right to
withhold employees from Belleville. Executive Board
Chairman Wiseman's remarks show that the Union hoped
a refusal by Brown to perform work for Belleville would
cause a refusal to work by the crafts employed by other
subcontractors on the project; and Rink's September 4
explanation to Brown for permitting Spitzer Electric to
cross a Carpenters picket line - that Spitzer would find it
harder than would the larger Belleville to utilize elsewhere
the material ordered for the picketed job - shows that
Rink hoped a refusal by Brown to cross the picket line
would render Belleville unable to perform the Thomas job
and thereby force it to cease doing business with the
picketed contractor, Independent. Moreover, while there is
no evidence that the Union had specific knowledge of the
special esteem in which Belleville held Brown, the Union
must have anticipated that (at the very least) Belleville's
operations on the Thomas job would be held up by having
to obtain a replacement for Brown and would give the
replacement the explanations and directions already given
Brown. Further, the Union must have been aware of the
distinct possibility that (as was in fact the case) Belleville
thought that its initial employee selection was best suited
for the job; and the Union could hardly have supposed
that Belleville had deliberately chosen an employee who it
thought could be better used elsewhere.
Robinson testified that, in May 1973 or earlier, the union
membership voted to require members to picket the
Georgetown Apartment project, and that in July, August,
or September 1974 he asked Brown to serve as a picket but
Brown failed to do so. Although testifying that this
resolution was in the Union's minute book, Robinson was
unable to find any such entry from 1971 through April
1975. Brown testified that in the spring of 1974, when he
was working for Belleville, Robinson told him to report for
picket duty; that Brown said he knew nothing about it and
was not going to go until he talked to Belleville Vice
President Shultz; that Brown had not previously heard
anything about the matter; that he did talk the matter over
with Shultz, who said the matter was up to Brown; and
that Brown decided not to go. Notwithstanding Robinson's
uncertainty about the date of the resolution and the
absence of any entry in the Union's minute book, I accept
his testimony that such a resolution was passed. However,
on the basis of the witnesses' demeanor, I credit Brown's
testimony that Robinson's directions to picket were issued
in the spring of 1974, 3 months before the Union took
action against Brown. Moreover, Robinson did not in
terms testify that the Union took action against Brown
because he failed or refused to picket, and there is no
evidence that the -matter was ever mentioned to Brown
16 See, in any event, infra, fns 18 and 22
17 See N LR B. v. Local 825, International Union of Operating Engineers
[Burns & Roe], 400 U S 297,304-305 (1971)
18 N L R B. v. Denver Building and Construction Trades Council, et al
[Gould & Preisner] 341 US 675, 688-689 (1951)
19 Los Angeles Building and Construction Trades Council ,etc.. (Lively
Construction Co.), 170 NLRB 1499, 1502-3 (1968); Local 252, Sheet Metal
again. Accordingly, I find that the Union's action against
Brown was in no way motivated by his failure to picket.16
During the disciplinary proceedings against Brown, the
Thomas project was referred to as an "ABC" job.
However, because Robinson could not remember whether
he found out about the project's connection with the ABC
(see supra, fn. 2) before or after he decided that Brown
should be removed from the project, I conclude that this
connection was not the initial or the primary motivation
for the Union's disciplinary action. Moreover, Robinson
did not learn about Belleville's ABC membership until
after the conclusion of the disciplinary proceedings against
Brown. Accordingly, I find it unnecessary to consider
whether the Union's action herein would have been lawful
if motivated solely by Independent's and/or Belleville's
ABC membership. (See infra, fns. 18 and 22.) I note,
however, the Union's concession in its answer that it had
no dispute with Belleville, and Robinson's testimony that
the Union had no dispute with Independent, Belleville, or
any of the other contractors on the Thomas job.
2. Whether such union pressure violated the Act
The evidence establishes that the Electrical Workers
threatened internal union discipline and other, unspecified
reprisals against its members Tate and Brown if they
continued to work for Belleville, and fined and expelled
Brown because he nonetheless continued to work for
Belleville. The record further shows that at least an object
of such union conduct was to disrupt the normal business
relations between the subcontractors on the Thomas
project (with which subcontractors the Electrical Workers
admittedly had no dispute) and general contractor Inde-
pendent (with-which the Electrical Workers admittedly had
no dispute either, but which was being subjected to a
Carpenters picket line which the Electrical Workers had
agreed to honor). Even on the assumption (which I have
found unwarranted) that the Electrical Workers were
merely trying to slow down Belleville's progress-on the job
in order to inconvenience the picketed Independent, and
had no hopes of causing the subcontractors to leave or to
be removed from the project, such a' limited`purpose would
constitute a "cease doing business" object within the
meaning of Section 8(b)(4)(B).17 Moreover, Section
8(b)(4)(B)'s proscriptions are breached if a "cease doing
business" object is an object of the Union's pressure, even
if this is not the only object.18
Accordingly, under settled Board law, the Union's
threats and imposition of internal union discipline and its
threats of unspecified reprisals violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)
,and (ii).19 More specifically, the Union violated Section
8(b)(4)(1) and (ii)(B) when (1) on September 4, Assistant
Business Agent Rink tried to induce Brown to stop
working on the Thomas project, and threatened him with
unspecified union reprisals if he stayed on the job; (2) on
Workers' International Association (S. L. Miller, Inc), 166 NLRB 262 (1967),
enfd. 429 F.2d 1244 (C A. 9, 1970), General Drivers and Dairy Employees
Local Union 563 et al, (Fox Valley Construction Material Suppliers Assn Inc.),
176 NLRB 386, 391 (1969) enfd. 440 F.2d 354 (C A 7, 1971), cert. denied
404 U S 912; Building and Construction Trades Council of Los Angeles, etc,
(Kon Lee Building Co.), 162 NLRB 605, 609 (1967); and cases cited infra, fn
25.
LOCAL UNION NO. 153, IBEW 353
September 17-18, Rink and Business Agent Robinson tried
to induce Brown to quit Belleville's employ; (3) about
September 21, Rink tried to induce Tate to stop working
on the Thomas project, and said that he could get into
trouble if he continued to work there; (4) on October 17,
trial board chairman, Wiseman, tried to induce Brown to
quit Belleville's employ, and threatened him with unspeci-
fied reprisals if he continued to work there; (5) on October
24, Robinson charged Brown with violation of the Union's
constitution and bylaws because he refused to leave
Belleville's employ; (6) on October 25, union recording
secretary, Johnson, ordered Brown to stand trial for that
reason; (7) on November 15, the Union's trial board
subjected him to such trial and (8) on November 15, the
union trial board secretary fined and expelled Brown for
that reason. The Union's secondary pressure is not excused
by its contract with Belleville reserving the Union's right to
discipline its members for violation of union rules. Such an
agreement does not constitute a defense to a union's use of
such discipline to effect a breach of the statute's secondary-
boycott proscriptions 20
In addition, I'find that, by threatening Tate and Brown
with internal union discipline and unspecified reprisals if
they continued to work for Belleville, and by imposing
internal union discipline on Brown when he nonetheless
continued to work for Belleville, the Union restrained and
coerced these employees, in violation of Section 8(b)(1)(A)
of the Act, in the exercise of their Section 7 rights to refrain
from assisting the Union in exerting economic pressure on
Belleville and Independent.21 More specifically, the Union
violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) by the above-described con-
duct, except item 3.22 The Union's pressure against' its
members for working for Belleville, a neutral subcontractor
on the Thomas site, is unlawful assuming (without
deciding) that the Carpenters "informational" picket line
on the Thomas project constituted lawful primary picket-
ing of Independent, the nonunion general contractor.23
While it is true that a union may lawfully impose internal
union discipline on an employee for refraining from certain
kinds of activity from which he has a Section 7 right to
refrain (for example, making a delivery across a primary
picket line or working during a primary economic strike
against his own employer),24 a union may not lawfully
impose such discipline on a member for working for a
secondary employer at a common situs where an employer
20 See Retail Clerks Union, Local 1179, etc (Alpha Beta-Acme Markets),
211 NLRB 84 (1974), Local 1976, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and
Joiners of America, AFL, etc, [Sand Door & Plywood Co] v N LR B, 357
U S 93, 104-107 (1958); Local 1516, International Brotherhood of Electrical
Workers (Mercantile Bank), 172 NLRB 617, 618-619, Muskegon Bricklayers
Union #5, Bricklayers, etc, (Greater Muskegon General Contractors
Association), 152 NLRB 360, 364 (1965), enfd as modified 378 F 2d 859
(C.A 6, 1967); Bay Counties District Council of Carpenters, AFL-CIO, etc
[Disney Roofing], 154 NLRB 1598, 1602-3 (1965), enfd 382 F 2d 593 (C.A
9, 1967), cert denied 389 U.S 1037 (1968).
21 Alpha-Beta, supra, Charles Rutherford, President, Local No 18,
International Union of Operating Engineers (B D Morgan & Co), 205 NLRB
487 (1973), enforcement denied in material part 503 F 2d 780
(C A. 6, 1974) See infra, fn. 25.
22 Such 8(b)(1)(A) violations would not be cured by a showing that other,
lawful considerations also entered into the Union's action with respect to
Brown. See Nachman Corp v. N L.R B, 337 F 2d 421, 423 (C.A. 7, 1964)
23 General Truck Drivers and Helpers Union Local 467, etc, (Jones and
Jones), 171 NLRB 623, 625 (1968); see also Kon Lee, supra, 607-609; cf.
other than his own is being subjected to a primary (or, a
fortiori, a secondary) picket line.25
The Union's brief alleges that Brown failed to take a
timely appeal from the union trial board's fine and
expulsion action. Even if shown, such an alleged failure
would not warrant dismissal of any allegations in the
instant complaint. Fisher Construction, supra; Alpha-Beta,
supra. In any event, the Union failed to put into the record
provisions of the International constitution,, which might
have shown whether or not the purported appeal was a
nullity because made by Brown's attorney, on the ground
that the Union was not relying such provisions (see supra,
fn. 11). Under these circumstances, the Union may not
now allege that the appeal was ineffective.26
CONCLUSIONS OF LAW
1. Belleville, Independent, Frame, and Cassidy are
engaged in commerce within the meaning of Section 2(6)
and (7) of the Act.
2. Respondent is a labor organization within the
meaning of Section 2(5) of the Act.
3. Respondent has violated Section 8(b)(1)(A) and
8(b)(4)(i) and (ii) of the Act by threatening members with
internal union discipline and other reprisals if they worked
for Belleville, and by fining and expelling Larry Brown
because he worked for Belleville, with an object of forcing
or requiring Belleville, Frame, and Cassidy to cease doing,
business with Independent.
4. Such unfair labor practices affect commerce within
the meaning of the Act.
THE REMEDY
Having found that the Union has engaged in certain
unfair labor practices, I shall 'recommend that it be
required to cease and desist therefrom and to take certain
affirmative action which will effectuate the policies of the
Act. The Union will be required to rescind Brown's fine
and expulsion; to excise any reference thereto from its
records; and to reinstate Brown, upon request, without
requiring the payment of back dues for the period of his
expulsion except for any portion of his dues which is
shown at the compliance stage to be regularly allocable to
the cost of any welfare benefits accruing to the Union's
members, to the extent that such benefits can be reinstated
infra, fn. 25.
24 See, e.g., International Association of Machinists, Oakland Lodge No
284 (Morton Salt Co), 190 NLRB 208, affd. in part and remanded in part
472 F 2d 416 (C A 9), 475 F.2d 426 (C A. 9, 1972), cert. granted and
remanded to the court of appeals 414 U.S 807, (1973), NLRB affirmed on
remand sub nom. O'Reilly [Arrow Development Co] v. NLRB, 88 LRRM
3278 (C A. 9, 1975) The judicial opinion most relevant to the instant case is
472 F 2d at 420-422. See also Local 12419, International Union of District 50,
United Mine Workers (National Grinding Wheel Company, Inc.), 176 NLRB
628 (1969), Glaziers Local Union No. 1162 etc., (Turco Glass, Inc), 177
NLRB 393 (1969).
21 Carpenters and Joiners of America, Local 1620 (David M Fisher
Construction Company), 208 NLRB 94 (1974), Kon Lee, supra, 607-609, B
D Morgan, supra The Sixth Circuit's modification of Morgan
was based partly on the fact that the members were disciplined because they
worked for the primary employer. 503 F 2d at 783. Cf. Jones and Jones,
supra, 625.
26 See Local 901, International Brotherhood of Teamsters etc. [El
Impartial, Inc ] v Compton, 291 F 2d 793, 796-797 (C A. 1, 1961)
354 DECISIONS OF NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD
retroactively to the date of his expulsion; to the extent that
such benefits cannot be made effective retroactively for
him, the Union shall be required to reimburse him, with
interest thereon at 6 percent per annum, for any expenses
or losses suffered because of the absence of such benefits,
less the portion of the dues which would have been
allocable to the payment of premiums for, or other
purchase of, such benefits.27 I shall also require the Union
to post appropriate notices.
Upon the foregoing findings of fact, conclusions of law,
and upon the entire record, and pursuant to Section 10(c)
of the Act, Thereby issue the following recommended:
ORDER28
Respondent Local Union No. 153, International Broth-
erhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, its officers,
agents, and representatives, shall:
1. Cease and desist from:
(a) -Engaging; in, or inducing or encouraging any
individual employed by Belleville Electric & Heating, Inc.,
or,. by any other person engaged in . commerce or in an
industry affecting , commerce to engage in, a strike or a
refusal - in the course of his employment to perform any
services; or threatening , coercing, or restraining Belleville
Electric & Heating, Inc., or any other person engaged in
commerce or in an industry affecting commerce , where, in
either case, an object thereof is to force or require Belleville
Electric & Heating, Inc., Robert E. Frame d/b/a Bob
Frame Plumbing & Heating, L. C. Cassidy & Son, Inc., or
any other person to cease doing business with Independent
Builders, Inc.
(b) Threatening or imposing internal union discipline
(including fines and expulsion) on its members, or
threatening its members with other reprisals, because of
their refusal to engage in the conduct specified above.
2. Take the following affirmative action which is
necessary to effectuate the policies of the Act:
(a) Rescind all disciplinary action taken against Larry
Brown, and excise any reference thereto from its records.
(b) Upon Larry Brown's request, offer him immediate
and full reinstatement to membership in Respondent
without prejudice to any rights and privileges to which he
would have been entitled as of and since his expulsion, and
reimburse him, together with 6 percent interest per annum,
for any losses or expenses suffered because of the absence
of certain benefits during this period of his expulsion, in
accordance with the section of this Decision entitled "The
Remedy."
(c) Post at its offices and meeting hall, and at all places
where notices to members are customarily posted, copies of
the attached notice marked "Appendix." 29 Copies of said
notice, on forms provided by the Regional Director for
Region 25, after being duly signed by Respondent's
authorized representative, shall be posted by the Respon-
dent immediately upon receipt thereof, and be maintained
by,it for 60 consecutive days thereafter, in conspicuous
places, including all places where notices to members are
customarily posted. Reasonable steps shall be taken by
Respondent to ensure that said notices are not altered,
defaced, or covered by any other material.
(d) Mail signed copies of said notice to Belleville Electric
& Heating, Inc., Robert E. Frame d/b/a Bob Frame
Plumbing and Heating, and L. C. Cassidy & Son, Inc., for
posting, said employers being willing, at all locations, where
notices to their employees are customarily posted.
(e) Notify the Regional Director for Region 25, in
writing, within 20 days from the date of this Order, what
steps the Respondent has taken to comply herewith.
27 Morgan, supra.
28 In the event no exceptions are filed as provided by Sec. 102 48 of the
Rules and Regulations of the National-Labor Relations Board, the findings,
conclusions , and recommended Order herein shall, as provided in Sec.
102.48 of its Rules and Regulations , be adopted by the Board and become
its findings, conclusions, and Order, and all objections thereto shall 'be
deemed waived for all purposes
29 In the event that the Board's Order is enforced by a Judgment of a
United States Court of Appeals, the words in the notice reading "Posted by
Order of the National Labor Relations Board" shall read "Posted Pursuant
to a Judgment of the United States Court of Appeals Enforcing an Order of
the National Labor Relations Board."